Legend
< Untitled (continued from page 8-137) >
complete an example of the internal essence and external manifestation of that essence in religion and morality combined.
Mr. Massey deeply respects the teaching of Behmen and of St. Martin, as do I, but thinks these men have no more claim to the name Christian than I have. But surely, if they do call themselves Christians, they must do so for reasons good to themselves.
To my mind they are profoundly Christian, because they know that to be “in Christ” signifies to be in the Spirit, and therefore to be one with God.
In conclusion, Mr. Massey thinks that I should not call myself a Christian, because if I were judged by the creeds of the Churches I should be condemned as heretic. Undoubtedly I fear I should; but then I do not draw my Christianity exclusively from the teaching of the Churches, but from my own laborious study of the life and teachings of the Master Himself, whose precepts and example I desire at a humble distance to follow.
<Untitled> (Sir,—In my letter...)
Sir,—In my letter contained in The Spiritualist of January 31st I quote from a letter of Madame Blavatsky as contained in the Revue Spirite of September; it should have been the Revue Spirite of October. I regret the mistake.
The Anniversary of Spiritualism
Sir,—The thirty-first anniversary of Modern Spiritualism will be commemorated on Sunday, March 30th, at Cavendish Rooms, Mortimer-street, W. Two meetings will be held on that day, in the morning at 10.30, and in the evening at 6.30. The morning will be devoted to a conference, in which all are invited to participate. In the evening addresses will be delivered by some of the leading Spiritualists.
To Spiritualists everywhere, greeting,—Feeling the deepest gratitude to God for opening our eyes to the bright sunlight of spiritual communion, and through that to a sweet assurance of the immortality of the soul, the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the holiness of true living, we ask heartily for the attendance and co-operation of Spiritualists and freethinkers everywhere, in order to fitly celebrate this anniversary of Modern Spiritualism. Regardless of sex, creed, or nationality, desiring only the best thought of the people, we aim not only to encourage true social unity among Spiritualists, but to prove to the world that we possess a faith deep and wide enough to hold all ’earnest seekers after truth. Having been taught first, that there is no death, second, that there is a life everlasting, in which the pure soul grows whiter, the unclean are cleansed, and the sad-hearted made to rejoice, our ear catches the pathetic command of that dear loving Teacher who, long years ago, said to every inspired soul “Feed My lambs.” Come, then, all ye who thirst, and drink freely, if not of the water of life, of our desire to liberate every imprisoned soul, whether bound by the shackles of superstition, or by that timidity of spirit which holds many from claiming their true kinship with the All Father. Our motto is “Truth against the world;” our star in the east—Love; our desire—eternal progress; our religion—God our Father, nature our mother, the world our brothers; science, music, and the arts—hourly gifts; and heaven our home.
I shall be pleased to hear from any and all who are willing to assist in this celebration.—Very truly yours,
4, Bloomsbury-place, W.C.
<Untitled> (Sir,—Permit me to say...)
Sir,—Permit me to say that Dr. Carter Blake’s opinion that Spiritualism has “little influence on our ideas about a future life;” and, further, that Spiritualism offers a number of physical facts “ in which he could not see any moral bearing whatever,” is diametrically opposed to the results of my experience and those of all experienced Spiritualists that I know. I was fairly astonished to see such a statement advanced by a scientific man, who is not devoid of personal experience in the matter. It might pass unchallenged if it came from the pen of an inexperienced investigator of spiritual phenomena, who had the misfortune never to have witnessed anything beyond the coarse and primitive “physical” phenomena, with hardly a glimpse of anything higher in it which could reveal or confirm Divine truths. We could then only have a smile of compassion, and our advice would be to him: Friend, there is no royal road to truth in this or in any other direction; patience and perseverance alone lead to ultimate results. But the successful pursuit of this branch of science requires, in addition, a certain preparation of the mind and heart. If you, in earnest search of spiritual truth, strengthen your will to overcome your prejudices, and prepare yourself to enter its threshold with pure heart and clean hands, taking off your shoes before you enter, like a mortal treading on most sacred ground, then you might consider yourself in a fit state for receiving communications from the other world, not only of a distinct moral bearing, but also such as are likely to influence your ideas of a future life very considerably, unless, indeed, your wisdom be already approaching that of a saint.
Coming from a scientific man, whose public statements on important questions carry some weight, influencing the judgment of a number of new and less experienced investigators of Spiritualism, it is our duty not to let such extraordinary statements pass unchallenged. I will only speak for myself, in the first instance, and say that the practical and theoretical study of the phenomena of Spiritualism has influenced my ideas so much that it has actually turned me from a sincere sceptic into a sincere Christian. Spiritualism has worked in me what no Church, no Bible, and no priest was able to do. I feel it to be my duty to confess this, with a heart full of gratitude towards Providence for having cured me from my former spiritual blindness.
It is true that Spiritualism is not a religion by itself, but it is a Divine revelation for the benefit of scientific and other sceptics, showing us clearly what is the real essence of religion and truth, teaching us to distinguish clearly between the “wheat and the chaff” in religious doctrines of every description. Or, as “Scrutator’’expresses it (page 33):—“One of the inestimable uses of Spiritualism is, that it confirms what is logical and just in all religions.” And as another correspondent on the same page says:—“I conceive the true mission of Spiritualism is to afford us the ‘proof palpable’ of the continued existence of the spirit after the dissolution of the body, and to teach us how to make the best use of our earth lives. Life is not a probation, but a school for the development and education of the spirit. Creeds are of little consequence, but the spirit can never attain its full development within the walls of a convent or a monk’s cell.” This is also my view of the case, which has been more fully and precisely stated already by Dr. Wyld (on page 21). I beg his pardon, at the same time, for leaving out of the question here altogether “the secret of the Logos,” to avoid useless mystification.
Taking everything into due consideration, it will be evident that there is not half as much dissension of religious belief in the body called Spiritualists as Dr. Carter Blake has tried, and failed, to prove. I confidently call upon the experienced Spiritualists of all shades of religious confessions on this side of the ocean, as well as on the other, to say whether the result of their experiments with regard to the moral bearing of the phenomena of Spiritualism tallies more with ours or with Mr. Carter Blake’s. By doing so I feel pretty confident that out of every hundred Spiritualists about ninety-seven will stand by our side, sharing our view of the matter, and the remaining three, perhaps, will not even side with him, but entertain some other peculiar theory of their own make. I venture to say that Dr. Carter Blake will stand almost isolated with his, evidently most absurd, view, with which not even Miss Kislingbury agrees, who confesses that to her Spiritualism has been “a boon of priceless value.” How could it have been that to her, if Spiritualism had offered nothing to her but a number of physical facts without any moral bearing whatever P If it was so, surely Miss Kislingbury, myself, and a thousand others, would have long before now left Spiritualism altogether to the physicists for investigation and explanation, waiting with perfect equanimity and patience for the result of their inquiry, as we do the solution of other merely physical problems. The reason, however, why millions have taken an active interest in the matter, and why the vast majority of modern physicists and scientists do not feel inclined to investigate this new territory of physical facts, is just because the former have “found ” and the latter have “heard ” that the facts of Spiritualism carry with them a great moral meaning, and influence most forcibly our ideas about a future life—a fact not at all provided for and not admitted in their scientific system of theories. Thanks to Providence there is already a number of other scientific men —a number which is daily increasing—who possess the courage of their opinions, and have studied the subject carefully, having gradually dropped their preconceived and narrow ideas, and arrived at the same conclusions as we have. Even among his scientific colleagues the propounder of the strange view stands alone, as he deserves.
The instruction to be drawn from the advancement of such peculiar views by a scientific man is clearly this, that “wisdom and science are different things altogether, each of which may be acquired almost independently of the other,” and that it is a great mistake to suppose that wisdom is necessarily connected with scientific knowledge. A man may be an expert in some branch of science, and still an obstinate blockhead with regard to true wisdom. Examples to prove the correctness of this are plentiful in the present and in the past. Vide Dr. Carpenter, Haeckel, and other scientists of the same school, in whose writings there is a profuse amount of scientific knowledge but very little wisdom, and still less justice and honesty discernible towards their scientific opponents, with regard to the acknowledgment of plain facts brought within their knowledge.
If people are still in doubt why Christ did not pick His pupils from among the learned scribes of His day, they may take for granted that it was because He did not want to teach science, but wisdom. Well aware that science creates conceit—the greatest obstacle to the acquisition of wisdom—He preferred choosing His disciples from the ranks of the most humble and illiterate, malting wiser, better, and abler men of them than any of the scribes.
There is also prevalent among the class of people to which the learned doctor belongs, the erroneous notion that only scientific men are capable and competent investigators and judges about phenomena and facts of any description. This is another of their little weaknesses, springing from the main source of scientific conceit and personal vanity which, in their want of wisdom, i.e., self-study, they are continually apt to mistake for love of science on their own part. We should be badly off, indeed, if we should have to wait, or to submit to the authority of scientific men our judgment about the moral bearing of spirit phenomena, and facts of a similar kind, involving problems of greater consequence to mankind than any scientific discovery and invention made from the beginning of the world up to the present day.
An aged German professor of natural science, renowned as an author and for certain scientific discoveries at his time, with whom I am on terms of friendship, also did not abstain from trying the old trick of overawing me by the solemn declaration that only scientifically trained persons were able to observe and judge about physical facts, when I had communicated some of my experience in spirit phenomena to him. At last he cut my unwelcome report off with the following remarkable words:—“If what you and others tell me were true, and founded upon fact, I should have to burn all the books I have written within the last twenty years.” Overpowered by the tragical force of that argument for the moment, I only ventured to express the consolatory remark that the books need not all be burnt, but that a thorough revision might save them from the fire. When Professor Zollner and his learned scientific friends had taken to the investigation of spiritual phenomena with Mr. Slade, in Leipzig, and publicly acknowledged the reality of the various phenomena they had witnessed under strict test conditions in the light, I was anxious to hear what my friend the professor would say. On being asked, before he knew what had happened in Leipzig, his opinion about the capacity of Professor Zollner, he instantly replied with emphasis, “Zollner is an eminent man of science.” Afterwards, when told that Professor Zollner had investigated the spirit phenomena with Slade, and become convinced that they were facts, my professor would hardly believe it. Recovering his composure, however, he coolly declared that Professor Zollner and friends must have been sadly mistaken or gone mad. Such is the logic of scientific men when their preconceived ideas are at stake. They turn against their highly-esteemed colleagues, whom they had before declared to be the only competent investigators and judges of physical phenomena and facts. It is the “mania of infallibility,” which to all appearance has beset the minds of scientists more than that of the Pope. Some German disciples of Darwin talk as haughtily as if they were quite sure that “the limits O nature were identical with the limits of their mental horizon.” And I dare say there are a good many scientific pigmies of the same sort on the other side of the Channel as well as on this. I don't mean to put the learned doctor, who has given rise to this letter in reply to his absurd statement, on the same list with the above-mentioned specimen of his scientific colleagues, still I cannot deny there is a certain resemblance. I cannot help, moreover, observing that I consider his expressions “horror” and “elusive wild beasts” quite out of place and uncalled for, as to my knowledge no such offensive term has been used by any writer in The Spiritualist against Roman Catholics. It would have been much wiser if he had stuck to his declaration of being in accord with Mr. E. Jones on the point of avoiding all sectional religious surmisings; instead of which he actually sinned against that declaration immediately after he had made it. More such distinct slips of logical consequence in his words and deeds, which no amount of Latin phrases and sophistic reasoning can cover up, are to be found among the doctor's letters. I finish for the present with a solemn protest for myself and friends against the absurd opinion of that gentleman, that Spiritualism offers nothing but a number of physical facts in which he can see no moral bearing whatever.
Wiesbaden, Jan. 27th, 1879.
Editor's notes
- ↑ Sir,—In my letter... by Scrutator (signed as Scrutator), London Spiritualist, No. 337, February 07, 1879, p. 70
- ↑ The Anniversary of Spiritualism by Fletcher J. W., London Spiritualist, No. 337, February 07, 1879, p. 70
- ↑ Sir,—Permit me to say... by Wiese, G., London Spiritualist, No. 337, February 07, 1879, pp. 70-1
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 337, February 07, 1879, p. 70